Public sector quality management: a

Common European Journey

The Common Assessment Framework

(CAF)

Nick Thijs

European Institute of Public Administration ( EIPA )

1. CAF and organisational improvement

2. Organisational improvement: the nature of

the model

3. Organisational improvement: some figures

4. Bench learning and improvement

5. CAF future perspectives

OVERVIEWOVERVIEW

3

Quality management means to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the organization (organizational performance)

Quality management = Organizational management

Continuous improvement

1. CAF and organisational improvement

4

The Common Assessment Framework (CAF)

The CAF Model

LeadershipKey

PerformanceResults

Processes

People

Strategy & Planning

Partnerships& Resources

SocietyResults

Citizen/CustomerOrientedResults

PeopleResults

ENABLERS RESULTS

INNOVATION AND LEARNING

5

Continuous Improvement – PDCA cycle (Deming)

PLAN

DOCHECK

ACT

6

Filosofie van de continue verbetering

Q

t

excellence

PDCA

Assurance of the level of quality(quality systeem) e.g. ISO 9000

continuous improvement

7

To introduce public administration to the principles of TQM and progressively guide them, through the use and understanding of self-assessment, from the current “Plan-Do” sequence of activities to a full fledged “PDCA” cycle;

To facilitate the self-assessment of a public organisation in order to obtain a diagnosis and improvement actions;

To act as a bridge across the various models used in quality management;

To facilitate bench learning between public sector organisations.

Objectives of the CAF

2. Organisational improvement: the nature of the model

8

898 registred users from 33 countries898 registred users from 33 countries

Others: South Korea, Dominican Republic, China, Namibia

Belgium (192) Romania (22) Lithuania (4)

Italy (141) Estonia (16) Luxembourg (4)

Portugal (85) Bosnia-Herzegovina (16) Turkey (4)

Denmark (80) Finland (14) EU Institutions (3)

Austria (48) Slovakia (12) Bulgaria (2)

Germany (45) France (11) Latvia (2)

Czech Republic (38) Spain (7) UK (2)

Slovenia (37) Cyprus (6) Netherlands (1)

Poland (37) Greece (6) Switzerland (1)

Hungary (32) Sweden (5) EU Commission (1)

Norway (18) Ireland (4) Croatia (1)

3. Organisational improvement: some figures

9

Level of government of the organisation

Local government

Subreg government

Regional government

State government

Central government

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0

27

18

12

5

38

10

Type of administration

Other

Local/regional admin

State-owned/run

Agency

Government ministry

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0

8

46

4

11

31

11

Size of the organisation

> 5000

1001-5000

251-1000

101-250

51-100

10-50

< 10

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0 2

6

29

24

20

13

5

12

Promoting and supporting toolsTool or activity Country

Advice (to individual organisations) Austria; Belgium; Estonia; Germany; Italy; Norway

Case studies Spain

CAF-based projects Denmark

Database / good practice Austria; Belgium; Germany; Hungary; Slovenia; Spain

E-learning Austria; Germany; Portugal

Electronic application tool Sweden

Electronic evaluation tool Austria; Germany; Sweden

Networks and partnerships Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Germany; Italy; Portugal; Slovak Republic; Spain

Pilot projects Czech Republic; Estonia; Hungary; Italy; Norway; Portugal; Slovak Republic; Slovenia

Publications (leaflets not included) Belgium; Germany

Quality conferences Hungary; Italy; Norway; Slovak Republic

Quality awards / contests Austria; Belgium; Estonia; Germany; Italy; Portugal

Questionnaires Portugal

Special guidelines Hungary; Portugal

Special training (developed for the CAF) Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Estonia; Poland; Slovenia; Spain

User Conferences Germany; Hungary; Italy

Worksheets Austria; Germany; Ireland; Portugal

13

1. Why do organizations choose the CAF? Top 15

Reasons Mean Type

The organization wanted to identify strengths and areas for improvement 4,20 Int

To develop sensitivity to quality issues 3,63 Int

Intention to involve staff in managing the organization and to motivate them 3,57 Int

As an input into ongoing improvement activities, restructuring etc. 3,54 Int

The organization used the CAF as a first diagnosis in the start of a strategic planning process

3,53 Int

To promote the exchange of views in the organization 3,51 Int

Because the top management wanted it 3,43 Int

To prove that the organization is willing to change 3,17 Int

To promote cultural change in the organization 3,14 Int

To embed a new system of performance management/measurement 3,09 Int

Need for a quick “health check” of the administration 3,07 Int

Increased sensitivity of staff to quality 3,07 Int

Because the CAF was communicated in a convincing way 3,05 Ext

We were looking for a tool to launch benchmarking 3,03 Int

To face a growing need for accountability and strengthen the legitimacy towards all the stakeholders

2,90 Ext

Use of organizational performance information

14

The final decision to use the CAF was taken by: %

The administrative top management 33

The political level at the suggestion of the administrative top management

19

The political level 15

The top management at the suggestion of a quality or improvement team

12

The top management at the suggestion of staff members or their representatives

10

The idea came up and was decided in a staff meeting 9

The quality or improvement team 3

2. Who is using the info ?

15

Main benefits Mean

Identification of the need to share information and improve communication 4,12

A clear identification of strengths and areas for improvement 3,97

We were able to identify a number of important actions to be undertaken 3,92

People developed a better understanding of the organizational issues/problems 3,89

Self-assessment gave rise to new ideas and a new way of thinking 3,67

The ability to contribute and to share views was felt positively 3,65

We realized how previous improvement activities could be taken forward 3,28

People started to become aware and interested in quality issues 3,22

We developed an understanding of how different initiatives in place fit together 3,21

People started to develop a stronger interest in the organization 3,15

We did not see any benefits at all 1,25

3. Benefits of the model

16

4. Linking the intention to improve with improvement initiatives

Sustainable improvement & importance of

identifying strengths and areas for improvement

Sustainable improvement activities because of use of CAF

NoYes

Pe

rce

nt

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Strength&Improvement

5 (very important)

4

3

2

2948

7

34

50

1714

87% started improvement initiatives !

17

5. Nature of improvement activity

Improvement activity number

Input into the strategic planning process of the organization 51

A full action plan (directly linked to the results of the CAF SA) 38

Implementation of surveys for the staff 32

Improvement of the process 30

Improvement of the quality of the leadership 26

Improvement of knowledge management 25

Implementation of surveys for the customers/citizens (needs and satisfaction) 22

Some individual improvement activities (but no full action plan) 19

Implementation of result measurement (targets) 18

Input into running improvement programme(s) 18

A consolidated report handed to the management (leaving the implementation to the latter) 16

Implementation of HRM tools (please specify) 14

Improvement of technology 14

Better management of buildings and assets 6

Implementation of new financial management tools 6

Other 1

18

6. Reasons no improvement initiative

Reasons Mean

Lack of time 3,00

Other priorities 2,71

No real willingness to change 2,41

Lack of financial resources 2,38

Lack of support for giving follow-up 2,32

The results of the self-assessment were not seen as concrete enough 2,24

The results of self-assessment were not accepted as an adequate picture of the organization

2,00

Key players had not been involved in the self-assessment 1,94

Self-assessment was never meant to lead to improvements (it was just a “health check” of the administration)

1,94

We did not succeed in identifying relevant areas for improvement 1,81

The results of self-assessment were not accepted by key persons 1,81

Other 1,70

The reason for conducting self-assessment was only to take part in an award contest

1,44

19

Lessons on the use of CAF in practice (1)

CAF is finding its way in the central levels of government besides its important use in local administrations and is used in different sectors of activity.

CAF suits all sizes of organisations but 50% had between 100 and 1000 employees.

It suits this group of starters with little experience on TQM.

shift from external towards internal reasons for using CAF: identify strengths and areas of improvement,

Choice for CAF instead of other TQM tools: easy to use, low cost and adaptation to the public sector.

Strong involvement of the top management.

20

Lessons on the use of CAF in practice (2)

The importance of communication to create ownership by the employees is underestimated.

Ideal size of SAG: between 5 and 20 persons.

External assistance is needed, especially in the preparation of the exercise.

The best preparation: elaborate guidelines, case studies, training and exchange of experiences.

Ideal timetable: 2 to 5 days within 3 months.

Most important obstacles are linked at the organisational context rather than to the model: lack of measurement, existing workload and limited view on the organisation.

21

Lessons on the use of CAF in practice (3)

Major benefits experienced match with major reasons: identification of - the need to share information and improve communication, - strengths and areas of improvement and - the actions to undertake.

Improvement actions as the result of CAF: 87% (62% in 2003)

Intention of using the CAF again: 95% (82% in 2003) 68% prepared to include the good practices they

discovered into the CAF database of EIPA but benchmarking/learning on the national level is more attractive.

22

Interested in taking part 2005 2003

At the national level 36 27

At the European level 9 23

Both 66 91

Not interested 8 14

4. Bench learning and improvement

“the continuous process of comparisons and measurements with other organisations everywhere in the world in order to obtain information about philosophies, strategy, practices and measurements which will help our organisations to undertake actions to improve its performance.”

23

Subcriteriapresent

in organisation interested

in

1.1. Give a direction to the organisation: develop and communicate vision, mission and values 16 30

1.2. Develop and implement a system for managing the organisation 21 28

1.3. Motivate and support the people in the organisation and act as a role model 20 35

2.2. Develop, review and update strategy and planning 18 22

2.3. Implement strategy and planning in the whole organisation 17 30

3.3. Involve employees by developing dialogue and empowerment 21 20

4.2. Develop and implement partnerships with the citizens/customers 12 18

4.3. Manage knowledge 6 22

4.4. Manage finances 14 13

5.1. Identify, design, manage and improve processes 18 28

5.3. Plan and manage modernisation and innovation 20 21

6.1. Results of customer/citizen satisfaction measurements 13 21

7.1. Results of people satisfaction and motivation measurements 8 23

8.1. Results of societal performance 6 14

8.2. Results of environmental performance 4 11

9.1. Goal achievement 10 23

Supply and Demand / Questions and Answers

24

25

• Self-assessment is a preliminary step before benchlearning

→ presentation of CAF applications (method, experiences,

results etc.)• Identification of good practice solutions, areas for

improvements• Benchlearning using CAF based on the content of CAF

criteria and subcriteria• Process organised by exchange of experiences and site

visits

Benchlearning process

26

• The most important phase is to integrate good practices

and ideas into improvement plans• Further possibilities in the subgroups: e.g.: common

surveys, common action plans, if possible• Summing up the results: inside, in the organisation and• Results reported by subgroups to the project coordinator

team at the end of the phase

Benchlearning process

27

Interesting projects

European bench learning project (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria)

Learning Labs (Italy), Learning cycles (Denmark)

Q-cities (www.q-cities.net)

Regional projects (Flemish network local governments)

national conferences

users conferences

28

European bench learning project

-> organisations 4 counties: Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria

1. Sharing of info on good practices by site visits

implementation of ISO 9001

description of processes – process maps

sharing of information and transfer of agendas by IT system

2. working on products

customer satisfaction measurements

29

initiative by public management institute (University of Leuven)

Network 40 local communities and local centers for social welfare

bench learning on quality management

voluntary

informal

no boundaries – no costs

Flemish network local governments

30

Activities

Network meetings (2 a 3 year)

Informal contacts between members

Conferences on quality in local government (www.limburg.be/kwaliteitscongres/ also in English)

Website (www.qualitynetwork.be)

Bench learning

sharing

dynamic /sharing

sharing

Flemish network local governments (2)

31

European Actors

Network of CAF Users: European CAF Users Event: 2003 Rome, 2005 Luxemburg, 2007 Lisbon

National CAF correspondents: civil servants and institutions

Network of National CAF Correspondents: meet 2 times a year

CAF Resource Centre at EIPA Research Training Consulting Database E-community

National training centres for public administrations

Universities

Private consultants

32

5. CAF Perspectives for the future (1)

• Mid Term Programme : 2010 registered CAF users by 2010:

• Register actual and future users• New users

• New Action plan 2007- 2008

• Registration of CAF as a Community Trademark (CTM)

• CAF Centre at 5QC (Paris, September 2008)

• 3rd CAF Users Event (Lisbon, 11-12 October 2007)

• Further development CAF eCommunity and good practices database (www.eipa.eu/caf)

33

• CAF newsletter

• CAF and other quality instruments (BSC, EFQM)

• CAF in different sectors (CAF and Justice, Education, Local administration ...)

• Learning tools: eLearning, DVD

• Networks in specific countries (e.g. Belgium)

5. CAF Perspectives for the future (2)

34

Activities CAF RC 2007

CAF and Justice - quality development in the field of justiceLuxembourg (LU), 16-17 April 2007

The CAF and the Balanced ScorecardMaastricht (NL), 13-15 June 2007

Measuring Customer Satisfaction – The customer in the focus/context of TQM/CAF Maastricht (NL), 18-19 September 2007

CAF Training Event - The CAF in ActionBarcelona (ES), 18-19 October 2006Maastricht (NL), 22-23 November 2007

CAF and LeadershipMaastricht (NL), 13-14 December 2007

ContactNick Thijs

Patrick Staes

European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA)

Public Management and Comparative Public Administration Unit

O.L. Vrouweplein 22 NL - 6201 BE Maastricht

Tel.: +31 43 3296 253

E-mail: n.thijs@eipa-nl.com

p.staes@eipa-nl.com

http://www.eipa.nl